Madras High Court
1365 cases · page 1 of 46
Showing 1–29M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. v.Pradeep Kumar K.R. & The Registrar of Trade Marks
M/s. K.R. Bakes Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation and removal of Trademark Registration No. 6305011 in Class 30 registered in the name of Pradeep Kumar K.R. Before the matter could be heard on merits, both parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a joint memo of compromise dated 19.08.2026. The Madras High Court recorded the settlement and disposed of the petition, with the compromise memo forming part of the order, and passed no order as to costs.
Eicher Motors Limited v.Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB
Eicher Motors Limited, the proprietor of the Royal Enfield brand and the registered owner of the 'REOWN' trademark across multiple classes, filed an application for an ad-interim injunction against Reown Moto and Hostinger Operation, UAB, alleging infringement of its 'REOWN' trademark and its formatives by the defendants' use of the mark 'REOWN MOTO / RM REOWN MOTO'. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents and directed the matter to be listed on 18.09.2026. An order of interim stay was granted as prayed for, restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark in any manner until the next hearing date.
Ashok Leyland Limited v.GoDaddy.com LLC and Another (John Doe operating ashokleylandevdealer.com)
Ashok Leyland Limited filed an application seeking an ad-interim injunction against GoDaddy.com LLC and an unknown John Doe respondent operating the website 'ashokleylandevdealer.com', alleging infringement of its registered trademarks including LEYLAND, ASHOK LEYLAND, AVTR, VIKING, and LEYLAND DOST. The applicant sought to restrain the respondents from using marks identical or deceptively similar to its registered trademarks in classes 7 and 12. The Madras High Court issued notice to the respondents, permitted private notice and service by speed post/RPAD, and granted an order of interim stay until the next hearing date of 25 September 2026.
Asif Traders v.Lion Dates Impex Private Limited
This application was filed by the Applicant/Defendant seeking permission to file five additional documents during the trial in a commercial suit. The court partly allowed the application, permitting documents nos. 1 to 3 (copyright application receipt, Form TM-C, and trademark registration certificate) subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent within two weeks, while rejecting document no. 5 for not being filed in proper format and noting that document no. 4 was not pressed.
Simpleenergy Private Limited v.The Controller of Patents, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office, Chennai
Simpleenergy Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of a 21-day delay in filing an appeal against the order dated 01.04.2026 passed by the Controller of Patents, Chennai, in Patent Application No. 202341071388. The respondent did not appear or file any objections despite private notice being served. The Madras High Court allowed the condonation petition, granting the appellant relief with no costs.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Moleculight Inc.
Adiuvo Diagnostics Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition under Section 117 A of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended by the Tribunals, Reforms Act, 2021) seeking condonation of a 33-day delay in filing a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appeal was directed against the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which revoked the grant of Indian Patent No. IN323440 (filed on 22.03.2017 with Indian application No. 201741010111). The counsel for the second respondent, Moleculight Inc., raised no objections and made an endorsement to that effect. The Madras High Court allowed the condone delay petition as prayed for, with no costs.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd & Anr. (VOX DEI Labs)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), filed three Original Applications seeking ad interim injunctions against Maxttox Healthcare Pvt Ltd. and VOX DEI Labs for allegedly using the deceptively similar mark 'UPRG9'. The Madras High Court, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was found prima facie infringing, granted the ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from using the impugned mark.
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar Trademarks, Office of Trademark Registry, Chennai
Wipro Enterprises Private Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks to dispose of TM-P and TM-M applications filed in respect of four Assignment Deeds involving trademarks transferred from various parties to KKR Agro Mills Private Limited and subsequently to the Petitioner. The Madras High Court, without entering into the merits of the claim, directed the Respondent to take up and dispose of the applications on merits and in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
V-Guard Industries Limited v.M/s. Kangaro Industries & The Registrar of Trade Marks
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a single Judge's order that had set aside the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of Kangaro Industries' request for extension of time to file evidence in opposition proceedings. V-Guard Industries had applied for registration of the mark 'KANGARO' in Class 16, which Kangaro Industries opposed. The Division Bench held that Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is mandatory, that no extension of time is provided under the 2017 Rules unlike the 2002 Rules, and consequently the opposition stood deemed abandoned. The appeal was allowed and the single Judge's order was set aside.
Mex Switchgears Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The applicant, Mex Switchgears Private Limited, filed an application to condone a delay of 122 days in filing an appeal against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks in Opposition No.801379 to Trademark Application No.1763867 in Class 09. The respondent opposed the application. The Madras High Court, after considering the averments in the affidavit and being satisfied with the reasons stated, allowed the application and condoned the delay.
M/s. MRF Limited v.Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries
M/s. MRF Limited filed four Original Applications (OA Nos. 713 to 716 of 2026) before the Madras High Court seeking ad interim injunctions against Mr. Aas Mohammed, Sole Proprietor of MRF Batteries, for allegedly using the marks 'MRF/MRF GENUINE/MRF BATTERIES' which are identical to MRF Limited's registered trademarks. The applications sought relief on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, and unfair competition/dilution of goodwill. The court, satisfied with the materials showing infringement of the registered trademark, granted an order of interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks.
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited v.Orange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
The Madras High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG-9' (Registration No. 2645507), restraining the respondents from using the allegedly infringing mark 'ORG-9'. The court found prima facie trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution of goodwill, relying on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in O.A.Nos.740 to 742 of 2025 where a similar alpha-numeric mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. Notice was ordered to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
Jurchen Group GmbH v.Gasion Airtec Private Limited and Swelect Energy Systems Limited
Jurchen Group GmbH, a German company, filed Original Applications seeking an ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from infringing its registered Patent No.IN-449314 titled 'Retaining System for Installing a Photovoltaic Module.' The dispute concerned an allegedly infringing solar mounting system installed at the premises of the second defendant in Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu. The Court extended the previously granted interim order until further orders and listed the matter after two weeks.
M.Padmini v.The District Revenue Officer
This is a review application filed by M.Padmini seeking to reconsider the Madras High Court's judgment dated 31.01.2023 in Writ Appeal No.2675 of 2018, which had upheld the Revenue Authority's direction requiring parties to establish their competing title claims before a competent civil court. The dispute concerned ownership of 9,795 sq. ft. of land in Survey No. 46/1 of Pammal Village, with the applicant relying on a 1968 sale deed and a 1977 compromise decree, while private respondents asserted title through subsequent transactions. The Division Bench dismissed the review application as devoid of merit, holding that the grounds raised fell outside the permissible scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC.
B. Ramu v.Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura
The petitioner, B. Ramu, filed an Original Petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking permanent custody of his two minor sons. The respondent, Dr. A.S. Jagana Madura, did not appear before the court. During hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and made an endorsement to that effect, prompting the court to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
Roja v.Elumalai
This case involved a petition filed by Roja seeking custody of her minor son Yashwin (aged about 6 years) from the respondent Elumalai, filed under the Guardians and Wards Act. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the Original Petition, making an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. The Madras High Court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn, with no costs, and closed the connected applications.
Elanco Us Inc v.Assistant Controller Of Patents And Designs
The Madras High Court set aside an order rejecting a patent application for an oral pharmaceutical composition, finding the rejection to be arbitrary. The court directed a re-consideration of the application by a different officer within four months. The application relates to a treatment for chronic inappetence and chronic weight loss in companion animals. The court's decision highlights the importance of careful consideration of patent applications and the need for reasoned decisions.
Qualcomm Incorporated v.Controller Of Patents And Designs
Qualcomm Incorporated appealed against the order of the Controller of Patents and Designs rejecting their patent application. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing a different officer to undertake the re-examination. The court found the original order to be arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. The patent application will now be re-examined, providing Qualcomm Incorporated with another opportunity to secure a patent.
Linux Laboratories Private Limited v.Ms Univentis Medicare Limited And 3 others
Linux Laboratories Private Limited filed a suit against Ms Univentis Medicare Limited and others for trademark infringement of their registered trademark EPITRAZ. The parties settled the dispute among themselves and filed a Settlement Agreement, which was recorded by the court. The suit was disposed of on the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with no order as to costs.
Spalon India Private Limited v.Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon
The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd v.Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Patanjali Ayurved Ltd
Hatsun Agro Product Ltd's appeal against the dismissal of its suit for trademark infringement and passing off by Patanjali Biscuits Pvt Ltd was dismissed by the Madras High Court. The court held that the trademarks 'Arogya' and 'Patanjali Aarogya' are not similar and that the respondents are protected under Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act. The court also found that the goods marketed by the appellant and the respondents are different and that the respondents' trademark is prefixed with the word 'Patanjali'.
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd v.Assistant Registrar Of Trademarks And, K.R. Nagendra, K.N. Shobha
Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd appealed against the registration of a trademark by Shankar Industries. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that Shankar Industries was entitled to protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. The court found that Shankar Industries had established use of the mark since 1995-1996 and that the appellant's use did not pre-date theirs. The court also noted that many of the appellant's registrations were limited to the state of West Bengal, while the respondents' registrations were limited to Karnataka.
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited v.The Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons v.M/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)
The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V v.The Union Of India
Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V challenged the issuance of an impugned notice based on the fourth pre-grant opposition, arguing that the delay in deciding previous oppositions was causing undue hardship and delaying the grant of patent for its compound acalabrutinib (Calquence). The court directed the Patent Office to decide all pending pre-grant oppositions within a stipulated time frame and ensure any new opposition raises fresh grounds.
Amara Raja Energy And Mobility Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appeal challenged the rejection of an application (No. 5547423) by the Registrar of Trade Marks on the ground that it was deemed abandoned due to non-filing of a counter statement against opposition No. 1323716. The appellant argued they were never properly served with the notice of opposition, as proof of actual receipt via email was lacking. The Court held that without proof of actual receipt, the time limit for filing the counter statement does not run, and consequently, the application cannot be deemed abandoned.
Steer Engineering Private Limited v.Joint Controller of Patents and Designs
The appeal was filed against the Joint Controller's order refusing to grant a patent for a fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition. The respondent argued that the amended claims were already covered by the parent application and did not meet statutory requirements, citing prior art.
E.R.Squibb & Sons Llc v.Union of India
E.R.Squibb & Sons LLC challenged the recommendation made by the Opposition Board regarding Patent No. IN340060, arguing that the board failed to consider crucial evidence submitted by the patentee during post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Zydus Healthcare Limited. The Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the recommendation is only a suggestion for the Patent Authority, the petitioner could raise these objections during the final decision-making process or appeal.
Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi v.Maya Appliances Private Limited
This Madras High Court judgment addresses the maintainability of a patent revocation application filed by Versuni Holding Bv Trading As Preethi against Maya Appliances Private Limited. The core issue was whether the petitioner could file this separate revocation petition when they had already contested the validity of Indian Patent No. 351954 as a counter-claim in an infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. The court held that once a defense is exercised in one forum, it cannot be re-agitated in another.
Edward Charles Troppi Smythe v.The Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks
The writ petition was filed seeking direction to accept and process an Indian Patent Application (IN202447028876) after the statutory deadline for filing a request for examination lapsed. The lapse occurred due to an inadvertent calculation error by the petitioner's Indian patent agent, who mistakenly used the second priority date instead of the first.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.